0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is distance an absolute invariant

Space Flow: you say that between galaxies in the voids that there are still gravitational forces at play, although very weak, and that space time is subsequently flattened. A flattening of space time is suggestive that without the effect of curvature, that a distance between 2 gravitational forces will be a 'shorter' distance than if any significant curvature were apparent. The time dilation aspects of faster time, (relative to earth), in these voids, also denotes that a unit of distance will be covered by a constant velocity more quickly.

Yet... This flattened space time is being stretched, and the fact of redshift is given as proof of such.

Can you calculate gravitational redshift?

Alan: you have said: GR simplifies to SR in the case of no acceleration, or no gravitational field... That there is a gravitational field in the voids, and that where these gravitational fields cross points, as such, that they cancel each other out. This being the premiss for wormholes presumably?

You have also given an example of some basic algebra that my level of study assumes that I already know. I'd like to understand how to use: GM/r2 ... my interpretation is that G is the gravitational constant, M is mass, but why a big one in this instance please?

r2 is radius squared, but is this a straight line radius distance or a circular radius distance... please? Any help appreciated!

"Although the intention of this thread is to remain within the remit of established physics""Ok, I am now asking things in certain ways because I intend that you think about the matter from that perspective".

Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the velocity related slowing of time (relative to a 'stationary' observer), and contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?Answer;Yes the Lorentz transformations are what is used to find the applicable gamma factor to any observed reference frame that is moving relative to the observer. The gamma factor gives you the time dilation and length contraction observed in a relatively moving reference frame.The second part of this question does not make sense (contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?). A reference frame that is observed to be moving is observed to undergo time dilation and length contraction.This is from the point of view of the observer, so saying that an observed moving reference frame in any way experiences such things is wrong. That same reference frame has every right under SR to consider itself stationary and it is the other reference frame undergoing the effects of observed speed.One's own reference frame can not experience these effects.Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the stretching of the fabric of space?If you mean due to Universal expansion, not as a general rule, as the observed speeds we see so far do not warrant that level of difficulty. But to answer the question if they describe the situation more accurately than not using them then YES. To clarify that some more, if we were observing expansion at relativistic speeds then we would be forced to take Gamma into consideration. As it is at the moment with the speeds we are dealing with the extra level of computing difficulty is not justified by the extreme fractional difference it would make in our answers.Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate gravitational time dilation? If not, what is?Answer; YesAnd... are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate an observed length contraction?Answer; Yes

dTo explain: my interest is in 'distance' rather than length. Distance being the space between things, and length being the distance occupied by matter. Clearly 'a' distance between things that are moving at different speeds relative to each other is variable. But... are we saying that distance itself, empty space between 'things', can be stretched or contracted?

This, I imagined was going to a more closed up V shape...Then Alan dropped the subtle hint that it is the length of the arms of the V that are supposed to be affected, which is when the experiment became vertically oriented in my mind.

It does make more sense that they are horizontal from the point of view of a more consistent gravitational field though.

Colin. No problem, in fact I think my post was just a symptom of my frustration at my inability to find anyone willing to undertake a 'progressive' discussion with me regarding GR.When taking on board the difference between a length and a distance, by the remit of SR, a length in a reference frame that is accelerated relative to another, will appear contracted to the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame. The observer on the length in the accelerated reference frame does not experience a contraction of his crafts length, and will instead experience a contracting of the distance he is travelling relative to what the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame observes of the lengths accelerated reference frames journey.Finally, the lengths accelerated reference frames rate of time is running slower relative to the non accelerated frames rate of time. Dispensing with the SR considerations for a moment, the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length and its accelerated reference frame travelling through changes in the gravitational field. These changes in the gravitational field also elicit changes in the rate of time that a clock runs at. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)... Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.***Therefore, and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in space.***So the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame, observing the accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length in the accelerated reference frame travelling through a gravitationally induced change, or changes, in the rate of time of its locality.According to GR, if light travels at the speed of light across units of distance experiencing local changes in the gravitational field, and therefore is experiencing changes in the rate of time over these units of distance experiencing changes in the gravitational field, and GR does not take these local changes in the rate of time into account, then distance does indeed become a variable. It stretches!Clearly the GR field equation's do also include these changes in the local rate of time into the mix to account for this stretching of distance that would otherwise occur.Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.

.............. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)...

Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.

......Therefore, ... and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in space

Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.

Well Space Flow, it would seem that your theory and mine are at complete and total cross purposes with each other (chuckle). No matter... I consider alternative physics theories as synonymous to a lottery ticket, that doesn't cost money, is much more entertaining, but shares the same probability issues in being a winner!One observation, my theory is a damn site easier to disprove than yours...lol!

What is relevant at this point in the discussion is a pendulum having a shorter swing at elevation. Yes - you are correct, this is a far greater effect than GR time dilation... but this is not the point. A pendulum is, and always has been, associated with time keeping. A shorter swing means faster time. I believe that this alone is the premiss for believing that clocks tick faster in elevation.

Edit: reading through this thread, am I right in thinking you are proposing that the effect of gravity on time is the opposite of what current GR says, or have I misread

I do realise though that it is a bit of a paradigm leap for the mind that is trained in relativity, to take on board that GR time dilation is perhaps just a "mass near mass phenomenon", (Not sure what you mean by that) that black holes are full of energy, where time runs extremely fast, (That should say slow) while the slowing of time that a traveller experiences in space is because time runs slow in space.(Proven fact time runs faster in free space.) I do not understand where you have a problem with observation fitting the theory, probably because you didn't say.

Ok, time has been shown to run fast in space. How has time been shown to run fast in space? By a clock. Does the clock have mass and associated mass? Yes it does. So... time has NOT been shown to run fast in space! Time has been shown to run fast for a clock and its associated mass in space. What rate time is running at in that space when the clock and its associated mass is not there, has not been proven at-all.Therefore, this theory examines the possibility that GR time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon, and that the rate of time runs slow in space. Light has no mass. It's frequency reduces by means of gravitational redshift. Rendering relativistic mass as redundant, this theory states the frequency of light as being indicative of the rate of time, and the increase in the wavelength as being time related not distance related.

Jeff - I feel really stupid! Like I should know how that relates to what I'm saying...but I don't. Would you please put it into context for me?

In non-relativistic newtonian terms the average velocity traveled in distance d is given by:.Instantaneous velocity at distance d is then:Then the instantaneous kinetic energy isuSince the field extends to infinity then this function is continuous to infinity. Thus the gradient of time dilation must be continuous to infinity and will not reverse since the gravitational field is non-vanishing.

Clocks are mass.

But Space Flow - I have indeed shown a means for equating what time is doing in space. It's light. Relativistic mass rendered redundant means that light is picking up its energy purely from its surroundings. Energy denotes frequency, and frequency denotes wavelength.Furthermore, I am saying that the Lorentz transformations are faulty. Don't use them. I've given a means to finding the constants of square root 2 and 0.41 within the Lorentz transformations to 'prove' or 'disprove' my theory, because the equation that I am suggesting as an alternative should exactly match the result of the Lorentz transformations, but from a different mathematical route, and for different reason.The alternate - d/square root 2, subtract result from d = 0.41 of d. This 0.41 of d is time related, not distance related. It takes the constant speed of light, this distance turned back into time (our rate of time) longer to travel d/square root 2 = revised distance.You say that blaming observations on the materials used to measure them isn't physics. I am stating time as energy related. In an energy related equation, M + m is a consequence. Also m has potential energy considerations. The clock and its associated mass have more associated energy than the space it occupies does when it's not there. Light, in that relativistic mass is stated redundant, has no potential energy considerations. Therefore, in that light is 'just' picking up gravitational field energy in space, light 'is' our clock in space!Yes, of course I'm trying to say that it is only time and not space that is variable, how else can one achieve an 'absolute reference' frame from which everything else can be equated?

Quote from: timey on 13/02/2016 00:18:33 Clocks are mass. And there's the root of a misunderstanding. GR predicts time dilation independent of the mass or density of any device you use to measure it, and the frequency of an atomic clock is not determined by the mass, density or weight of any component. AFAIK the various clocks used by, for instance, ground stations, GPS satellites, aircraft and spacecraft, all have different masses and are surrounded by carriers of different masses, yet they all do the same thing. When we have an entirely theoretical prediction confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy by several independent practical experiments, we tend to accept the primary hypothesis.

However, if light gravitationally shifts when exposed to changes in a gravitational field, then the light in that experiment is 'shifted', end of story, and they will be recording a shift in time. No doubt about it! ...

A caesium atom has mass.

my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's massless

Quote from: timey on 13/02/2016 09:34:53 A caesium atom has mass. But the difference in energy between the hyperfine ground states of a cesium atom is not mass-dependent.Nor, come to think of it, is the period of a pendulum!

Correct - they are both gravity related, and gravity causes changes in the rate of time...

The frequency of light reduces in a reduced gravitational field, because it is not experiencing any potential energy.

If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.

No, I am 'not' saying that the light is 'bent'... (my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's massless) ... I'm saying that the light is gravitationally 'shifted'. And yes, that a 'change' in the rate of time is occurring. That physics is calculating this 'change' as being slower. This is causing the appearance of a length contraction. If you calculate under the remit of this 'change' in time as being to quicker time. Then you can see the length has not contracted. The contracted 'time' has caused the constant speed of light to cover the distance a bit quicker is all.